Tell me what you think of this

[freyasman]

How about your link to this?

https://www.denverpost.com/2015/11/03/open-carry-becomes-focus-after-colorado-springs-shooting-rampage/
And there was a thread on this board about it as well.

 

[freyasman]

@freyasman

How about those examples I asked for of where cops can lawfully ask for ID on the basis of some crime about to be committed?

Wait...... you want me to provide you with examples of when your assertion that cops may legally force someone to ID when there are no facts in evidence at the time that there is any criminal activity afoot, is correct?

I couldn't if I wanted to, because it's not.

 

[resident_evil]

Wait...... you want me to provide you with examples of when your assertion that cops may legally force someone to ID when there are no facts in evidence at the time that there is any criminal activity afoot, is correct?

I couldn't if I wanted to, because it's not.

Don't play coy. The examples are hypothetical and you aren't scouring the internet for real examples. You're supposed to use your imagination to explain when YOU think it is legal to ask for ID when police may reasonably assert a crime may be in the works. I'm not going to ask again. But no answer will say a lot.

 

[freyasman]

Don't play coy. The examples are hypothetical and you aren't scouring the internet for real examples. You're supposed to use your imagination to explain when YOU think it is legal to ask for ID when police may reasonably assert a crime may be in the works. I'm not going to ask again. But no answer will say a lot.

They may reasonably assert a crime is in the works when there are specific, articulable facts in evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe there is a crime being committed, about to be committed, or just has been committed. Lacking those facts, they may ask, they cannot demand, and they cannot detain.

This is one of the ways that all the conditioning of the last several decades has paid off; people have forgotten the basic idea that a free man doesn't need to explain himself, nor does he have to justify his actions to a representative of the state, (such as a cop). The cop is the one who must justify his actions, and who must be able to explain fully, every step of the way, why he stopped the person, why he questioned them, why he detained and ID'd them, etc. And if he can't do so to the satisfaction of the law, then his actions are illegal...... because the only thing that an agent of the state may legally presume about a citizen is that they are innocent of any and all wrongdoing until proven otherwise.

LE has successfully conditioned people to the opposite through coercion, threats, and intimidation tactics, and made the average person feel as though he must explain himself to every clown in a costume who asks a stupid question. They want us to feel as though we are guilty until we satisfy them we are not.

 

[resident_evil]

They may reasonably assert a crime is in the works when there are specific, articulable facts in evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe there is a crime being committed, about to be committed, or just has been committed. Lacking those facts, they may ask, they cannot demand, and they cannot detain.

This is one of the ways that all the conditioning of the last several decades has paid off; people have forgotten the basic idea that a free man doesn't need to explain himself, nor does he have to justify his actions to a representative of the state, (such as a cop). The cop is the one who must justify his actions, and who must be able to explain fully, every step of the way, why he stopped the person, why he questioned them, why he detained and ID'd them, etc. And if he can't do so to the satisfaction of the law, then his actions are illegal...... because the only thing that an agent of the state may legally presume about a citizen is that they are innocent of any and all wrongdoing until proven otherwise.

LE has successfully conditioned people to the opposite through coercion, threats, and intimidation tactics, and made the average person feel as though he must explain himself to every clown in a costume who asks a stupid question. They want us to feel as though we are guilty until we satisfy them we are not.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[freyasman]

You didn't answer the question.

Yes I did. How did I not?
What you want to be legally justifiable, just isn't.

 

[resident_evil]

Yes I did. How did I not?
What you want to be legally justifiable, just isn't.

Your perspective has too much of your political anarchy philosophy influencing it. Articulation training and body cameras are going to comply with the law as it is and (not as you think it is) making the reasonable trade off between individual rights and the community's rights enforceable.

 

[freyasman]

Your perspective has too much of your political anarchy philosophy influencing it. Articulation training and body cameras are going to comply with the law as it is and (not as you think it is) making the reasonable trade off between individual rights and the community's rights enforceable.

If you got facts, then articulate them, and do your thing. If the shit coming out of your mouth is hypothetical bullshit based on your imagination then fvck off, officer dumbass.

And I don't want to hear anything about "officer safety" either..... they knew it was a dangerous job when they took it, and they can quit at any time. Fvck their whiny-ass "safety concerns".

 

[resident_evil]

If you got facts, then articulate them, and do your thing. If the shit coming out of your mouth is hypothetical bullshit based on your imagination then fvck off, officer dumbass.

Free speech not withstanding belligerent speech (aka fighting words) can be precursors to violence that allows officers to legally trespass offenders (for a day) from their facilities. Repeatedly harrassing officers could potentially get you Baker Acted.

 

[freyasman]

Free speech not withstanding belligerent speech (aka fighting words) can be precursors to violence that allows officers to legally trespass offenders (for a day) from their facilities. Repeatedly harrassing officers could potentially get you Baker Acted.

But that isn't what we've been talking about, is it?

LEOs who repeatedly harass and threaten people who are doing no harm and no wrong should face the same consequences, don't you think? But they almost never do, do they?

 

[resident_evil]

But that isn't what we've been talking about, is it?

It very much goes with I've been trying to talk about. I put that in because we never got around to it, I'm finishing this conversation, and I wanted a sense of completion on the matter.

LEOs who repeatedly harass and threaten people who are doing no harm and no wrong should face the same consequences, don't you think? But they almost never do, do they?

LEO's do wrong all the time up to and including unlawful killing. They should be punished every time. They need training and shift long body cameras. I have never been harassed by a LEO and I've been approached pushing a dozen times for various reasons. Not even a ticket when one or two may have been warranted.

 

[freyasman]

It very much goes with I've been trying to talk about. I put that in because we never got around to it, I'm finishing this conversation, and I wanted a sense of completion on the matter.


LEO's do wrong all the time up to and including unlawful killing. They should be punished every time. They need training and shift long body cameras. I have never been harassed by a LEO and I've been approached pushing a dozen times for various reasons. Not even a ticket when one or two may have been warranted.

You never had a chick with a LEO for an ex, I guess.

Of all the auditors and copwatchers out there, this guy is one of my favorites;

 

[resident_evil]

You never had a chick with a LEO for an ex, I guess.

Of all the auditors and copwatchers out there, this guy is one of my favorites;

I wonder if there was a dash cam to go with that illegal stop? That would clear everything up.

 

[freyasman]

I wonder if there was a dash cam to go with that illegal stop? That would clear everything up.

I love cameras, and if we could get LE officers and agencies to quit "losing" the footage every time they show their ass, then we probably wouldn't need to film them ourselves as much.

 

[resident_evil]

I love cameras, and if we could get LE officers and agencies to quit "losing" the footage every time they show their ass, then we probably wouldn't need to film them ourselves as much.

I see a lot of their own footage burning them. I see a lot of confiscated footage returned that burns them. But having your own is probably best for you.

 

[Dawg]

frey, here's how it works:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fired-for-a-felony-again-for-perjury-meet-the-new-police-chief/ar-BBWgqWj?ocid=spartandhp